Search results

[…] State AI Report. From a compliance perspective, disclosure standards provide tangible obligations for developers to operationalize. From a consumer protection standpoint, legislators view them as tools to promote transparency, prevent deception, and curb excessive engagement by reminding users, especially minors, that they are interacting with an AI system. B. Safety Protocols and Risk Mitigation […]

[…] and ownership of Banco Popular instruments. Those deemed eligible could then submit comments through an online form. More than 23,000 comments were received, each assigned an alphanumeric code. In June 2019, the SRB transferred 1,104 comments relevant to the valuation to Deloitte via a secure server. Deloitte never received the underlying identification data or […]

[…] using criteria of economic efficiency when they pursue other overriding values that go beyond economics.  The place of data protection in the EU legal order has been better recognised by President of the Court of Justice Koen Lenaerts, who stated concerning EU data protection law in an interview in 2015 (paywall) that “Europe must […]

[…] Chart: Risk Assessment (DPIA) Requirements in California, Colorado, and the EU California Colorado EU FPF Analysis: CA v. CO References California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185, subd. (a)(15) Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1309 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 35 This comparison chart focuses on the […]

[…] role in shaping “well-balanced AI policies beyond our borders—especially in the absence of a comprehensive federal framework.” Supporters view the bill as a critical first step toward promoting transparency and reducing serious safety risks, while critics argue its requirements could be unduly burdensome on AI developers, potentially inhibiting innovation. These debates come as New […]

[…] strong concern that replicating the EU AI Act could create regulatory overreach. However, civil society groups argue that even comprehensive frameworks like the Colorado AI Act or Virginia’s HB 2094 (vetoed) are significantly narrower in scope and that highlighting that superficial similarities with the EU AI Act, such as shared definitions or structural references, […]

[…] AI development and deployment.  Enforcement tools and defense strategies: Legislatures expanded Attorney General investigative powers (such as civil investigative demands) in bills including Texas’ TRAIGA (enacted) and Virginia HB 2094 (vetoed). A variety of other defense mechanisms were introduced, including specific protections for whistleblowers, as represented in California’s SB 53 (enrolled). Looking Ahead to […]

[…] Vice President for Privacy, Safety and Regulatory Affairs, and Corporate Vice President for Global Tech and Regulatory Policy.  In her leadership roles at Microsoft, Julie was a central figure in global internal and external regulatory affairs, covering a broad set of issues that are central to building trust in the AI era, including regulatory […]

[…] data: the movement of a computer mouse or use of a smartwatch may technically constitute, under certain definitions, neural data. As such, there is a significant difference between laws that cover both CNS and PNS data, and those that only cover CNS data. Connecticut SB 1295 is the lone current law that applies solely […]

[…] has a defined testing time period, which could be as short as three months or as long as two years. During that period, there is regular engagement between the regulator and sandbox participants, although the cadence and scope depends on the sandbox and the supervisory body. Post-sandbox reporting: At the end of the sandbox […]